Basketball - The big debate

[SamH]

What do you think is more important to a team - a dominant point guard or a dominant big man? By dominant I mean they're one of the best players in the league and the team leader, a true stud. You can have that guy, but where do you want him to be on the floor to maximise that talent?

[spacejammer]

Both are important but I would say PG as they are usually more athletic and can run alot faster or round the big.
Plus a big tends to lurk inside the paint so as long as you are a good shooter mid range-beyond the arc you should be alright.
Plus the PG is suppose to control the plays.

[SamH]

The way I look at is, who would you rather have - Stockton or Malone? Malone is generally considered the greater of the two, but how much of his success (especially scoring) came from having the greatest passer ever feeding him the ball? So actually, that analogy is no help whatsoever!

There was a time when no NBA team had ever won a championship without an all star big man, but those days are gone now - they went with the Bulls (who ironically, had an average point guard in Ron Harper too!) Of course these days big men seem to play more like point guards anyway, but I think I'd agree - a great point guard makes everyone else better and is the coach on the court. A big can give you 30 and 20 on a good night, block a few shots - but can he make everyone else better? Not so sure he can!

[spacejammer]

Apr 5, 2022 18:19:49 GMT SamH said:

The way I look at is, who would you rather have - Stockton or Malone? Malone is generally considered the greater of the two, but how much of his success (especially scoring) came from having the greatest passer ever feeding him the ball? So actually, that analogy is no help whatsoever!

There was a time when no NBA team had ever won a championship without an all star big man, but those days are gone now - they went with the Bulls (who ironically, had an average point guard in Ron Harper too!) Of course these days big men seem to play more like point guards anyway, but I think I'd agree - a great point guard makes everyone else better and is the coach on the court. A big can give you 30 and 20 on a good night, block a few shots - but can he make everyone else better? Not so sure he can!

I think when you look at it one is considered better offensively and the other better defensively.
As I mentioned with a PG they control the offense and attack the basket more.

However on defence a Big is better for defending the basket and stopping the opposition getting to the basket for an easy layup by blocking shots.

Problem is at BBL level it's harder to find guys who are humongous under the basket.
Although the teams who have the best Bigs in the league this season are Leicester, London and Manchester.

[reallyoldfeenixfan2]

Apr 5, 2022 18:30:20 GMT spacejammer said:

Apr 5, 2022 18:19:49 GMT SamH said:

The way I look at is, who would you rather have - Stockton or Malone? Malone is generally considered the greater of the two, but how much of his success (especially scoring) came from having the greatest passer ever feeding him the ball? So actually, that analogy is no help whatsoever!

There was a time when no NBA team had ever won a championship without an all star big man, but those days are gone now - they went with the Bulls (who ironically, had an average point guard in Ron Harper too!) Of course these days big men seem to play more like point guards anyway, but I think I'd agree - a great point guard makes everyone else better and is the coach on the court. A big can give you 30 and 20 on a good night, block a few shots - but can he make everyone else better? Not so sure he can!

I think when you look at it one is considered better offensively and the other better defensively.
As I mentioned with a PG they control the offense and attack the basket more.

However on defence a Big is better for defending the basket and stopping the opposition getting to the basket for an easy layup by blocking shots.

Problem is at BBL level it's harder to find guys who are humongous under the basket.
Although the teams who have the best Bigs in the league this season are Leicester, London and Manchester.

Sorry I've got to take issue with your last sentence. What's your definition of " the best bigs"? Agree with Riders, although it does help having outstanding guards to supply the correct feeds into the paint. Not certain about Giants with Clark not playing as an out and out centre rebounding enough ( unless you were referring to David Ulph). I would expect more consistency from a 7 foot centre amazing at shot blocking and crowd pleasing dunks but again not necessarily doing the hard graft under both baskets.
I'm obviously biased but having this  discussion with mentioning  Mike Ochereobia is missing one off the list.

[irf]

I know an ex football manager who used to say get the spine of the team right and you have a chance

You need a good quality one of each of the following to build around:


Keeper
Centre Half
Centre Mid
Striker

So I think realistically to have any chance of a good basketball team

You need a dominant PG AND dominant Big Guy to build around

Made even harder though in basketball as its not realistic to have them on court every minute of every game

I think re your question a dominant PG without a dominant big Guy can't expect to do well or vice versa

They need each other on court

Even at (lowly in comparison) BBL level










Get those two roles dominant and maybe sacrifice elsewhere on court IS possible?

[SamH]

That's why its the big debate IRF - you can only pick one!

[irf]

Apr 6, 2022 17:45:15 GMT SamH said:

That's why its the big debate IRF - you can only pick one!

Ok

Riders have won the league before without having the dominant PG in the league

So I'm going to say purely for that reason it can't be point guard that's most important?

[A tall man]

If you look across the league I think point guards are usually the best players in the league.

As a coach I want a good point guard before i want a good big

[mac]

Eagles have won a lot with dominant Point Guards who have won a fair few Player of the Season awards. While they are exciting to watch I would prefer a dominant Power Forward or Centre. I believe in the old adage "offence wins games, defence wins Championships". A dominant big brings both.

[SamH]

Again that used to be true Mac and maybe outside the NBA it is - but the Warriors kind of destroyed that theory! Although with Draymond Green they're not bad defensively I guess, but definitely more offensive.

The funny thing is most non basketball people still have that stereotype in their mind that basketball players have to be tall/big and the taller the better. Yet actually the point guard is usually the smallest guy but so crucial to the team success.

[hayesboy]

GSW championship teams had several excellent defenders Sam. Green, Igoudala and Thompson were all better than average and then KD is no slouch either when he is locked in.

I think though the old adage about defence winning championships is true if you presume at least a basic level of offensive proficiency.

To answer the question I think that most basketball teams since 2000 at professional level have been dominated by strong wing players who can score and handle the ball. I am hoping that Giannis, Jokic and Embiid change that view. Particularly the latter.

I also think that the way the game is reffed these days in FIBA and NBA rules makes it harder for the defenders to be as effective as they once were.

[dandayr]

Neither.
Aint going to win a thing if all I can have is a dominant point guard or a dominant big man.
I'll let opponent A have the leagues dominant PG and opponent B have the leagues dominant big - and if I only have the 2nd best or 3rd best, then with my 3rd best guys in the other spots I fell comfortable about silverware.

[SamH]

Interesting. It got me thinking about points and bigs on average teams who have led them to over achieve. Obviously we've seen LeBron do that but he's a wing.

Trae Young last year springs to mind. To be honest no one else really does. Seems to me wings and shooting guards are better at carrying bad teams - why might that be?

[hayesboy]

At the elite level I think this is where possibly there is a new blueprint in Jokic. A true centre who can also be a play maker and punish teams that sag off him.
Embiid has some of that but not all of it. I think he will always need a play maker to unlock his true potential.

At lower levels a dominant big to secure the boards and protect the rim is brilliant but they are likely to need guards and wings to generate the offence and handle the ball.

I guess elite wings, who combine a bit of everything, are the ideal for the teams that don't have the elite PG and dominant big.

Ultimately its a team sport isn't it? 5 players working together to a common strategy can overcome individual brilliance.

[irf]

Apr 8, 2022 0:18:01 GMT SamH said:

Interesting. It got me thinking about points and bigs on average teams who have led them to over achieve. Obviously we've seen LeBron do that but he's a wing.

Trae Young last year springs to mind. To be honest no one else really does. Seems to me wings and shooting guards are better at carrying bad teams - why might that be?

What about depth?

Two very good point guards or forwards on the same squad is better than one dominant and one average on a squad

Less disruptive and dangerous to the team when the dominant player has to sit down

Can share minutes more and both very good players play with more energy when on court?

Ps when I'm thinking of this I'm thinking BBL rather than NBA

But probably can apply to both

[SamH]

The only problem when you have 2 very good players who play the same position is minutes - or moving one of them to a different position. It's difficult to keep them both happy sometimes but I think the way the game is now, players are more adaptable and the positions and their traditional roles are less important now. You often see wings playing the so called 'point forward' position for example and acting as the primary ball handler.

[hayesboy]

There has been a lot of talk in the NBA about the "death of the centre" prior to the rise of Jokic and Embiid. For me the positions that have really died in the NBA are the shooting guard and the old fashioned Power Forward.

You generally have on teams PG, Wings, Big.

I think in FIBA basketball there are more traditional 2 guards still. Or Combo guards.

[SamH]

In some respects I do think the centre position has died, at least in terms of the traditional way it was played. Yes, we have some talented 5's in the NBA now but they don't play the same way all those great 5's from the past did, i.e. back to the basket and banging down low. These guys are out there shooting 3s, spacing the floor and can score from anywhere. The traditional inside outside game that you'd run through your big man has gone now and I think that also adds more emphasis on the point guard to perform and ensure the ball goes to the right places. The offence is more dynamic now than it used to be so the point guard has to work harder to orchestrate that.

[hayesboy]

Embiid is pretty darn close to the classic 90s centres.
Jokic is almost a throw back to the eras before that.
A high post centre.
Yes he handles the ball more but I think both Jokic and Embiid are proper centres.